Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would state that the upset price fixed by the Company Court in its order dated 02.02.2012 does not assign any reasons as to how the upset price is fair and reasonable. It is further submitted that there are more than 900 tenements in the property, which was sold and the workers' families are residing in the said area and the Official Liquidator has brought the property for sale without notice to the persons, who are residing in the property. Further, it is submitted that erstwhile employees of the Company have sought for allotment of the property in their favour and in this regard proceedings have also been initiated before the Revenue Officials so as to enable them to obtain patta. It is further submitted that the Company Court ought not to have blindly accepted the report submitted by ITCOT and should have examined as to whether the valuation done was the fair value of the property, when it is not in dispute that the guideline value of the property at the relevant point of time was three times more than the amount shown as the value of the property in the report, which has been accepted as the upset price. The learned counsel made elaborate reference to the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Review Application Nos.164 and 165 of 2012 and submitted that the observations contained therein have not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. Further, it is submitted that the observations made in paragraph 18 of the impugned order is contrary to the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, dated 19.11.2012. Further, it is submitted that the observations made by the learned Single Judge with regard to the task of vacating the occupants in the land its effect on the upset price is an observations which is solely based on the personal view of the learned Single Judge and there is no basis for recording such a finding. Further, it is reiterated that it is not in dispute that the guideline value of the property at the relevant time was three times more than the upset price and the Court did not make any endeavour to ascertain and decide the fair price of the property and mechanically accepted the valuation report, copies of which have not been furnished. It is submitted that it is the duty of the Court to apply its mind to the valuation report and to verify as to whether the report indicates a reasonable value of the property to be auctioned, even if objection is not raised. In support of such contention reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divya Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd. vs. Union Bank of India and Ors., reported in (2000) 6 SCC 69.